Last week, the North Carolina Court of Appeals gained power in Congress with government agencies that accused the state commission of elections, election management, campaign finance disclosures, and all 100 county election commissions.
For almost a century, the Governor of North Carolina has exclusive authority to appoint the majority of the state election commission from the governor’s own party and to appoint the majority of the members of the county election commission. When 2024 ended, Lambdak Congress over the governor’s veto — transferred its appointment from the governor, who is now a Democrat, to the state auditor and now a Republican.
At the same time, the role of the state commission attracted the public’s attention. Judge Jefferson Griffin, who lost the state Supreme Court competition, petitioned the board to throw away more than 60,000 votes. The board dismissed his assignment, leading to a six-month court battle before being granted Wednesday.
Even if Griffin’s challenge is concluded, the sudden change in who is now able to appoint national and county election majority could have an impact on voter access for elections as early as this fall. And it reflects the troublesome pattern of using courts and legislative councils to undermine elections.
How the law was passed
In 2016, Democrat Roy Cooper was appointed governor. Republican state lawmakers have since repeatedly tried to steal the governor’s power to appoint members of the state and county election boards. First they tried to pass the law. The state court deemed the law unconstitutional. They tried again in 2018 through constitutional amendments. Voters refused. Then in 2023 they attempted through new laws deemed unconstitutional.
Recent efforts began two weeks after the 2024 election. After Democrat Gov. Josh Stein was elected to replace Cooper, Republicans enacted a veto for Cooper – Senate Bill 382. The new law has shifted the power to appoint state election commission members to state auditors. Cooper challenged the laws of the state court.
On April 23, in a 2-1 decision, a panel of three judges ruled that the law was unconstitutional. “Because the duty to faithfully enforce the law is exclusively assigned to the governor, Senate Bill 382 cannot be reassigned to an auditor without violating the constitution,” the majority consisting of Republicans and one Democrat. The lawsuit was filed by state auditor Dave Boliek and Republican legislative leaders.
The following week, April 30th, without briefing or verbal discussion, the state court of appeal issued an unanimous, unsigned order blocking the court’s decision. (Stein asked the state Supreme Court to review and reverse the appeals court’s decision.) On May 1st, the following day, and April 30th, the previous board’s terms expired, so Boriek named two new Republican board members and changed the board to a 3-2 Republican majority.
Why is it important?
Those with the North Carolina and county election boards will influence those who can make decisions that can limit or increase voting access. In fact, the role of the state commission in Griffin’s election dispute shows why this is important. And the reallocation of parliamentary control overrides fundamental democratic principles. When a party loses an election, it cannot change its distribution of power to expand its influence.
The role of executives in ensuring voter access
State and county election commissions will make decisions that will affect how North Carolinians vote, when and where they can vote. For example, every five county election board must unanimously agree to its early voting plan. If not, the state commission will resolve the dispute.
State and county boards are also working together to help voters. After Hurricane Helen hit just before the 2024 election, a massive festival tent was set up to serve voters whose buildings were washed away. A state commission resolution allowed voters from 25 counties affected by hurricane flexibility for voting. As a result of these efforts, voter turnout was nearly 75% in affected counties, two percent higher than statewide turnout.
Case Study: Griffin Supreme Court Challenge
The role of the state commission in recent election contests has demonstrated the importance of its independence.
After adding a narrow loss to his opponent, Justice Allison Riggs (D), Griffin attempted to overturn the outcome for his seat in the state’s High Court.
Two post-election responses confirmed that Riggs won by 734 votes. Griffin responded by filing hundreds of election protests across the state, challenging the votes of more than 60,000 voters. These challenges reflect efforts to change the state board’s rules after the election is held. The state commission dismissed Griffin’s claims and said the election should be recognized. Griffin sued.
After six months of lawsuit, the federal court found that Griffin’s assignment (and his favourable state court decision) violated the federal constitutional rights of challenged voters. Two days later, Griffin finally admitted.
However, the interpretation of the state commission’s election rules could have influenced the election. For example, the state Election Commission determined that Griffin only protested overseas votes in a single county on time. The state high court later approved Griffin’s thousands of overseas vote assignments, but did not specify the number of votes affected. If the board changed its position, as Griffin urged, the number of foreign votes protested would have increased from about 1,400 to 5,000. Through a heavily contested lawsuit, the state committee defended the rules voters followed. The sudden shift in leadership for partisan interests may have had different outcomes.
Reflecting power grabs in both North Carolina and across the nation
Moves to shift the authority to appoint North Carolina legislature – and the state court of appeals approval of that shift reflects trends in concern. It is to lose a political party that transfers political parties to themselves before other parties take office.
That trend surpasses North Carolina. In 2018, after Democrats were elected to Wisconsin’s governor and other statewide offices, Republican-controlled Congress passed last-minute measures to strip the governor of control of multiple state agencies. That same year, Michigan Republicans similarly proposed stripping the Secretary of State of surveillance of the state’s campaign finance law after Democrats took office. (The Michigan bill passed the state Senate, but died in that house.)
In North Carolina, Republican Congress has used the last day of a veto super majority to shift its appointing power to Republican state auditors. Given this context, it appears that legislative power gains are designed to send a message that state and county election commissions should act partisanally. However, the committee is believed to control elections for all voters across the state, and cannot advance policies that one party is believed to benefit the other.
••••
Voters rely on state and county election boards to protect and ensure votes. When the court approves attempts to change these board members for purely partisan interests, it signals voters that politics outweighs voting access. That message has troubling consequences for our democracy.
Justin Lamb is a lawyer for the Brennan Center for Justice.
Suggested Quote: Justin Lamb, North Carolina Courts allow for partisan shifts for the state election commissionsᴛᴛᴇcᴏᴜʀᴛrᴇᴘᴏʀᴛ (May 8, 2025), https://statecourtreport.org/our-work/analysis-opinion/north-courlin-court-enables-enables-partisan-shift-tate-ections-board